N.S. fish farm rejected: risk to wild salmon.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just so we are clear and correct - The affected FN - in this case - Sto Lo Tribal Council, were NOT informed and consulted about Molly's results because somebody in DFO thought the results were "invalid" and nobody did follow-up studies to confirm Molly's findings? Is that correct? Who is responsible for that decision?

AND how does DFO determine who is the affected FN? Did they look at who utilizes those fish by watershed? Do they consult wih the FN downstream of that potential impact? Is there a published policy of how to determine who is the affected FN?

I don't know if the STC was consulted about the samples that were not replicable nor sure if it was necessary to do so as responsible managers like to be sure of their facts before speaking about or publishing data. I don't know who would have been responsible to tell them. The STC was invited to the Team because one of their bands, Soowahlie, were directly impacted by the loss of Cultus sockeye. I would think the FN leaders on the recovery team had some responsibily to inform downstream bands of the procedures and plans to recover the stock.

As for protocols on informing FN about scientific matters I suggest you bring this up with senior DFO policy makers.

Don't make a mountain from a mole hill on this because there really is nothing new here.
 
Gobsmacked. That's how I would describe my reaction to your response, Dave – if I hadn't had experience with DFO and it's prevalent paternalistic, myopic, defensive attitude.

I'm not blaming you for being a cog in a large bureaucratic machine. Everyone needs to put dinner on the table. I do find it interesting how well you have absorbed the prevailing corporate climate of fear and lies – backed-up with doses of corporate propaganda.

My guess is that others will also read our dialogue and start to realize how bad it really is – how inappropriate and conflicted DFO is to be both a regulator and an enabler/promoter of open net-pen aquaculture.

I do sincerely thank you for your honesty thus far. It has enabled a respectful dialogue.

Having said thus: onto the response....

I don't know if the STC was consulted about the samples that were not replicable nor sure if it was necessary to do so as responsible managers like to be sure of their facts before speaking about or publishing data.
If you didn't know – if you were “not sure” - all you had to do is inform the STC about Molly's ISA results. You should have known that both as a federal employee, and particularly as a federal someone who consults “almost daily” with FN.

A responsible manager would NOT have played gatekeeper and would have told the STC about the results, rather than them finding-out through Cohen 7 years later. A responsible manager would have told FN the results were preliminary (that's called being sure of the results, Dave), and worked with them to get new, fresher samples for analysis.

A responsible manager would have known that the courts have ruled AGAIN and AGAIN that by restricting and filtering information – representatives of the Crown are negotiating in BAD FAITH with FN. It is up to the FN, and NOT you or your bosses – to determine what is relevant or “meaningful”.

This is NOT making a mountain out of a molehill, Dave. This is serious sh*t. The Cultus Lake sockeye are very much impacted and very much still “at risk” whether or not the DFO minister stepped-in to keep the species off the SARA list.

IF ISA is to blame, or partly to blame for the stock decline – stop and think about what that means.

It means that the native (or resident) trout and char population are also likely infected. The whole system might be infected. Adult Pacific salmon die after spawning – so they can't be perennial carriers reinfecting the system - why does this stock decline stayed pinned down for so many years? What if ISA creeps out of the Cultus system into the Fraser mainstem through migrating resident trout?

Yes, I know there are also other potential reasons for a stock decline, but 64 out of 64 samples? COME-ON DAVE. No red flags popped-up for you? You are ok with the way this was handled – with a total lack of professionalism and responsibility?

I get very upset when I envision senior DFO managers sitting down with any FN reps, obviously knowing full well there is a large conservation issue with the potential that ISA was released into a naive system of salmonids – but ho-humm, maybe we shouldn't talk about that. Instead lets talk about those Canucks, eh? Great game last night, eh?

FN are a group of the public that DFO has been forced into talking to by the courts. If DFO is so willing to lie to them - given the potential for law suits – can you imagine how disinterested senior DFO employees (AKA minor royality) must be about being honest and open with us minor redneck peons? The public that pays their salaries?

AND if that corporate climate promotes and forces junior DFO employees to act like this and think it is ok – this confirms my rants and outrage over the past previous postings.

I've got more outrage to spill – but that's enough for now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FN, specifically the Sto Lo Tribal Council, were members of the Cultus Lake Sockeye Recovery Strategy so should have been up to speed on all developments but not necessarily this particular instance because as stated, the work could not be replicated, therefor was considered invalid.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any testimony, at the Cohen Commission, that stats Molly's samples were rerun and turned out all negative. If I'm wrong can you point to the testimony that says so.
 
Calm down; your arrogance is overwhelming but I'll wait for more outrage.
Your perception of my arrogance (real or imagined) is of minor consequence given the seriousness of the issues here - and should not be used as an excuse to deflect answering the questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Been pretty quiet on this thread for the past few days. Interesting.

Further to the potential that ISA is at least partly to explain for the stock crashes in both Cultus Lake AND River's Inlet...

River's Inlet decline in the sockeye escapement numbers started in the 70's, accelerated in the 1990's and ended-up in a crash in 1999 – from which it has never recovered. Commercial fishing in areas 9 and 10 have has not been permitted since 1996.

In 2011 Rick Routledge from Simon Fraser University found two of 48 sockeye smolts from Rivers Inlet tested positive for a strain of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA).

CFIA then stormed off like SS troops run amok and seized Rick's samples claiming that they posed a risk to infect wild stocks, tested for ISA using inadequate testing protocols, and claimed there is no ISA.

If the samples have no ISA - where's the risk? Even if they contained ISA - it is contained - unlike the wild fish still containing viable ISA. As far as I know CFIA still have the samples.

The situation for Cultus is similar. I'm sure Dave could comment on the escapement numbers. High variability started around the early 70's, and steadily declined over all years but the 1999 cycle, then it crashed . Cultus showed an alarming decline in spawning success beginning in 1995, with elevated levels of pre-spawning mortality (PSM) thought to be caused by heavy infestations of Parvicapsula minibicornis, although Molly tested 64 samples and got 64 positives for ISA.

Parvicapsula and ISA might not be mutually exclusive - maybe infestations of Parvicapsula causes open sores on fish that promote transfer of ISA.

Cultus lake sockeye stocks were assessed as endangered in 2003 by COSEWIC. The status of the population has not improved since 2003 largely because of poor smolt-recruit survival, and the average number of spawners remains at about 1000 fish.

In 2004, Molly Kibenge detected the presence of ISAv in 64 out of 64 Cultus Lake sockeye salmon – and we already had that conversation about this travesty of DFO – and they still claim no ISA is in BC waters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent,

Has ISA ever been found to cause mortality in Pacific (Onchorhyncus) salmon? I always thought it to be a virus that Pacifics carried without effect.

In addition, there are several different "strains" of the ISAv. HPR0 for instance which shows up in a PCR, but isn't virulent. Giving a positive ID for ISA, but not for the virulent strain.

Oh yeah to get back to the original topic of this post. The farm site in NS should never have been considered as it is on the Eastern shore. This area of coast NE of Halifax has lethal winter temperatures. Even if approved, it wouldn't be farmed for long.

As for it being a detriment to wild salmon, the rivers in the area have already been hit hard by acid rain long before anyone considered a salmon farm in the area. Unforunately all the salmon rivers on NS atlantic coast suffer from the same poor geology which doesn't provide sufficient alkalinity in the soil to buffer the harmful effects of Acid Rain coming from the States. I measured the Roseway river near Shelburne in the early 90's and the pH was 3.9. Only real populations of any note of wild salmon are on the north coast o the province and in Cape Breton where the soil has the ability to buffer the acid.

Since there are no real populations of wild salmon due to acid river water, for DFO to deny this application on the grounds that it might impact salmon populations is quite strange, and doesn't seem to be based on reality.
 
Sockeyefry: you bring-up some important points about the potential that the open net-pen industry has impacted weak adjacent wild salmon stocks on both coasts of our country – helping cause significant enough additional impacts to initiate a COSEWIC/SARA conservation concern and listing.

AS you must know – the Inner Bay of Fundy Atlantic salmon stocks are now listed (in 2001 by COSEWIC) as “Endangered” by both COSEWIC AND SARA, where here - the DFO Minister decided NOT to intercede in the listing process.

Unlike other Maritime Atlantic salmon stocks that travel to NFLD, Greenland and the Faroes to overwinter – the Inner Bay of Fundy post-smolt stocks generally overwinter in the Lower/Outer Bay of Fundy – near where the open net-cage industry is based. These stocks also migrate North along the New Brunswick side of the Bay of Fundy where, again - the open net-cage industry is based. References are from Amiro and Lacroix. The only known exception to this pattern of iBoF smolts was that post-smolts from the Big Salmon River were captured outside of the Bay of Fundy on the eastern shore of Nova Scotia around the corner from the Bay of Fundy.

The Outer BoF smolts leave the Bay of Fundy rapidly and are found along the south and eastern shores of Nova Scotia in early summer. This might be the conservation concern over the proposed NS salmon farm site.

It is true that these Inner BoF stocks have had other impacts as well (e.g. dams, where many have now been removed) – but I fail to see where that is any different from any other river in the Maritimes in general, with the exception of the low pH rivers you identified. THESE iBoF stocks now have such a conservation concern that they got listed as “endangered” by SARA.

I doubt if sea lice loading had the same kind of impact on Atlantic smolts as it can on Pacific salmon smolts, as these Atlantic smolts are some 160 times larger than pink salmon smolts by weight when they leave the creeks. It would likely be other impacts. We have all read the news about ISA in fish farms in NS.

Speaking of ISA – you bring-up some valid points. There are several different "strains" of the ISAv, that we know about – as you correctly pointed-out. There is likely other unknown strains (as viruses mutate), which may or may not be considered as benign as the known ones. It's very possible that one of the unknown strains could cause higher mortality. It's also highly likely that ISA impacts the fishes immune system – making it more vulnerable to other immune challenges.

In other words – it might not be ISA that kills the fish – but ISA could lower the immune response and weaken the fish making it more susceptible to mortality from other immune challenges.

Yes this is all conjecture at this point – but it does illustrate the need for more fish health work – and the need to take this stuff seriously – and not hide it from the public.
 
Very informative and sane discussion, I am enjoying this and learning from it.:)
 
Very informative and sane discussion, I am enjoying this and learning from it.:)
This is also the conversation we should be having with DFO/CFIA. Open, transparent, respectful and honest. We shouldn't have to drag them into court to get answers. They are PUBLIC officials working on PUBLIC resources, with salaries paid by the PUBLIC. Currently - Harper's Canada is NOT the Canada I agree that represents me. We need to demand accountability and democracy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Agent,

The IBOF rivers generally drain through rich farmland with sufficient buffering capacity. pH is not a concern with these rivers during normal conditions, there is also what we call the "acid flush" in the spring when all the "acid snow" melts and floods the rivers just as the young fry are hatching.

The farms in the Charlotte county area of NB were identified as a potential reason for the demise of these stocks. While they might have played a part I don't think they are the sole reason. A lot of these IBOF rivers are very short, and are quite susceptible to summer drought periods, and warm temperatures. The exception of course being the Stewiacke and Shubie systems. As you said Atlantic smolt are quite large and robust when compared with the Pacifics so sea lice may not be as big an issue. Another factor out here is the increase in seal predation over the last 20 years.

Good point about the migration pattern of the smolt, I hadn't considered that.

Open discussions are going to be quite difficult the environment surrounding the fish farm debate. There isn't a lot of trust on both sides, and this is unfortunate. I do think that a way to farm salmon can be found that satisfies the need to preserve wild populations and ecosystems, yet at the same time creating a viable industry.
 
Open discussions are going to be quite difficult the environment surrounding the fish farm debate. There isn't a lot of trust on both sides, and this is unfortunate.
There's an understatement. I think trust starts with honesty and openness.
I do think that a way to farm salmon can be found that satisfies the need to preserve wild populations and ecosystems, yet at the same time creating a viable industry.
I think it's called closed containment.
 
I think that just because it's debatable about their impacts on wild fish, that all farms should be closed contained systems. It just makes logical sense doesn't it? If we choose to act against nature, and raise fish in artificial conditions its only fair that it should be done in a way that least affects the environment. I believe its a negative impact, but whether or not it is or isn't, dead fish carcasses, uneaten food pellets, and easy prey for predators DO affect the ecosystems undeniably. Lets not mess with something that has evolved over many years and keep these systems as contained as possible.
 
Agent,
Agreed has to be open and honest. I think however, that emotions and agendas on both sides get in the way of that frank discussion.

Closed Con is not a compromise. CC will result in an industry shut down. If that's your agenda, then keep pushing for it. If you want to find a solution that will keep a viable industry and heatlthy wild salmon stocks, then stop pushing CC and look for more creative asolutions such as:

Using CC to grow the salmon to a larger size, say 1 kg before being out into net pens. This would lessen the time the fish would be in the sea (from 18 - 24 months to less than a year). This would allow for management of sites that would include local conditions such as wild smolt out migrations, extended fallowing to break sea lice cycles. I think this sort of strategy would benefit both the wild salmon and the industry.
 
Agent,
Agreed has to be open and honest. I think however, that emotions and agendas on both sides get in the way of that frank discussion.

Closed Con is not a compromise. CC will result in an industry shut down. If that's your agenda, then keep pushing for it. If you want to find a solution that will keep a viable industry and heatlthy wild salmon stocks, then stop pushing CC and look for more creative asolutions such as:

Using CC to grow the salmon to a larger size, say 1 kg before being out into net pens. This would lessen the time the fish would be in the sea (from 18 - 24 months to less than a year). This would allow for management of sites that would include local conditions such as wild smolt out migrations, extended fallowing to break sea lice cycles. I think this sort of strategy would benefit both the wild salmon and the industry.

That solution would require a serious amount of creativity to work. "less than a year in the sea" would have to be more like less than eight months as all farms on migration routes would have to be fallow from beginning of March to end of June to accommodate juvenile wild salmon. Marine Harvest tried to implement something like this at some- but not all - of their sites in the Broughton. Alternating odd and even years saw farms on different migration routes fallow. Sites on the other route in the Broughton and sites elsewhere remained stocked during the period.

I can't envision how this would work for all farms in B.C. Virtually all are on some wild salmon migration route. Then there are the implications on year round product availability. Can you explain more how you see this working?
 
Closed Con is not a compromise. CC will result in an industry shut down. If that's your agenda, then keep pushing for it. If you want to find a solution that will keep a viable industry and heatlthy wild salmon stocks, then stop pushing CC...
You've been busy on this forum, SF.

There is far too much risk and uncertainty with the open net-pen technology against the safety and viability our wild stocks over the long term. This has been demonstrated world-wide. As I have said numerous times - I (like many others) am not anti-aquaculture - but rather anti-open net-pen technology.

The longer the industry delays in adopting CC - the more impacts there are to wild stocks. The industry says they can't afford CC - but there are trials and report that say you can make a buck using CC - just not as much as open net-pen technology.

we the public - can't afford the open net-pen technology - given the risks and impacts to wild stocks. If the open net-pen industry wants to survive - they need to transition to CC.
 
pretty easy for this laymen,, if CC costs are higher and the purchasing public know it is a safe and healthy, why wouldn't they pay a lil more per lb., i thinks they would knowing they are purchasing a healthy and ethical product.
 
Cuttlefish,

It's not hard to design a production scenario which would involve all sites that MH owns, their specific requirements vis a vis wild salmon etc..., with hatcheries and middle stage involving large CC grow out facilities, however I not about to provide MH with Free consulting. They are quite capable of figuring this out for themselves. Its not about having no salmon in farms on migration routes, but having salmon which would have minimal potential impact, IE no lice, and about farms which have expanded fallowing to mitigate any environmental effect.

Agent,

Where are the trials and reports that indicate the profitability? I can't see an industry based on 100% CC production in BC surviving.
 
Cuttlefish,

It's not hard to design a production scenario which would involve all sites that MH owns, their specific requirements vis a vis wild salmon etc..., with hatcheries and middle stage involving large CC grow out facilities, however I not about to provide MH with Free consulting. They are quite capable of figuring this out for themselves. Its not about having no salmon in farms on migration routes, but having salmon which would have minimal potential impact, IE no lice, and about farms which have expanded fallowing to mitigate any environmental effect.

Agent,

Where are the trials and reports that indicate the profitability? I can't see an industry based on 100% CC production in BC surviving.

This reply doesn't answer my question.
 
Cuttle,

Sure it does. I know how to do it. Consultants get paid for knowledge. I'm not going to give it out for free.

MH tried to avoid the migrations in the Broughton, but they were hampered by having to accomodate the entire marine growrth phase of up to 2 years. If you shorten it to 8 months, then the scheduling becomes easier.

The problem isn't the scheduling, but the large capital expenditure to adopt this kind of a production schedule. You have to build all those Facilities to grow the fish from smolt to 1 kg, and develop the infrastructure to transfer all that biomass out to the pens. It'll take years to implement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top